If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

So, I have a t-shirt with the Dixie Flag on it that I got in the Gettysburg tourist shop, and the words "Gettysburg" underneath. I find civil war history fascinating, and especially the evolution of warfare that came with technology innovations in rifling and the use of rail-roads. I specifically visited Gettysburg to stand on the high water mark at Pickett's Charge. I can't imagine what it was like to be coming up that hill into the union defences. Really interesting stuff. So, I'm a bit of an enthusiast.

Does wearing a t-shirt from the Gettysburg tourist shop imply that someone is a racist? What about getting their picture taken in the t-shirt?

So, I have a t-shirt with the Dixie Flag on it that I got in the Gettysburg tourist shop, and the words "Gettysburg" underneath. I find civil war history fascinating, and especially the evolution of warfare that came with technology innovations in rifling and the use of rail-roads. I specifically visited Gettysburg to stand on the high water mark at Pickett's Charge. I can't imagine what it was like to be coming up that hill into the union defences. Really interesting stuff. So, I'm a bit of an enthusiast.

Does wearing a t-shirt from the Gettysburg tourist shop imply that someone is a racist? What about getting their picture taken in the t-shirt?

Exactly. Moreover, we really only care if some people are offended and others less so. I personally am offended by the Battle Hymn Of The Republic.

While you were hanging yourself , on someone else's words
Dying to believe in what you heard
I was staring straight into the shining sun

Supporting equal rights for gay people is not pissing on the military. Feel free to consult the life of Uriah Levy and Hyman Rickover for perspective.

Demanding the complete overthrow of the military culture in order to accommodate a lifestyle that provides no benefits to the armed services is pissing on that culture.

Originally Posted by Novaheart

Just in case you are being a semantics ninny, or just plain ignorant, Gay military personnel are not treated equally under military policy even though DADT has ended. Their legally married spouses are not recognized for the purpose of family benefits. But they will be.

Gay troops do not have legal spouses of the same gender according to federal law. If you want to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, then take it up with the congress.

Originally Posted by Novaheart

I can also be legally and church married (to a person of the same sex) in some states and countries, just as married as any other service member.

Yes, but you aren't as married as any other service member under federal law. As I said above, take it up with congress.

Don't have to, it's unconstitutional and will be undone. Scalia said so.

Don't have to, it's unconstitutional, Scalia said so.

Scalia said nothing of the sort, and you know it. What he said was that if the "logic" of the court's decision to overturn anti sodomy laws was applied to other case law, that it would justify gay marriage, but this was his argument against overturning the anti sodomy laws.

Scalia said nothing of the sort, and you know it. What he said was that if the "logic" of the court's decision to overturn anti sodomy laws was applied to other case law, that it would justify gay marriage, but this was his argument against overturning the anti sodomy laws.

Scalia was just whining. He knows he lost, and he knows that he'll defer to precedent when the time comes. Oh, and something I just noticed is that part of his argument has been overcome by events:

The Court views it as “discrimination” which it is the function of our judgments to deter. So imbued is the Court with the law profession’s anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously “mainstream”; that in most States what the Court calls “discrimination” against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal; that proposals to ban such “discrimination” under Title VII have repeatedly been rejected by Congress, see Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1994, S. 2238, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. (1994); Civil Rights Amendments, H. R. 5452, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975); that in some cases such “discrimination” is mandated by federal statute, see 10 U.S.C. § 654(b)(1) (mandating discharge from the armed forces of any service member who engages in or intends to engage in homosexual acts); and that in some cases such “discrimination” is a constitutional right, see Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000).

Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one’s fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one’s views in absence of democratic majority will is something else.

And there is where the good little Vatican steamship Scalia runs aground. Civil Rights are not a popularity contest.

While you were hanging yourself , on someone else's words
Dying to believe in what you heard
I was staring straight into the shining sun

Scalia was just whining. He knows he lost, and he knows that he'll defer to precedent when the time comes. Oh, and something I just noticed is that part of his argument has been overcome by events:

The Court views it as “discrimination” which it is the function of our judgments to deter. So imbued is the Court with the law profession’s anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously “mainstream”; that in most States what the Court calls “discrimination” against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal; that proposals to ban such “discrimination” under Title VII have repeatedly been rejected by Congress, see Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1994, S. 2238, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. (1994); Civil Rights Amendments, H. R. 5452, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975); that in some cases such “discrimination” is mandated by federal statute, see 10 U.S.C. § 654(b)(1) (mandating discharge from the armed forces of any service member who engages in or intends to engage in homosexual acts); and that in some cases such “discrimination” is a constitutional right, see Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000).

Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one’s fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one’s views in absence of democratic majority will is something else.

And there is where the good little Vatican steamship Scalia runs aground. Civil Rights are not a popularity contest.